Kerala High Court
Alex Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 19 May, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 5446 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:34175
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5446 OF 2025
CRIME NO.190/2025 OF ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
ALEX MATHEW,AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS MATHEW,
RESIDING AT KAIPPALLY VEEDU,
KURAVANKONAM ROAD, KOWDIAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003
NOW RESIDING AT VILLA NO.06,
AMBADI RETREAT, CHILAVANNUR,
ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 020.
BY ADVS. T.K.SANDEEP
SWETHA R.
SREELAKSHMI SHIBU
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE :
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.05.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 5446 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:34175
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A. No.5446 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 19th day of May, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.190/2025 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections55(a), 58, 13 and 63 of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077.
3. The prosecution case is that, when petitioner was arraigned as an accused in connection with the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; a search was conducted on 16.03.2025 at his house in relation to the said crime. During the said search, 7 bottles of Foreign liquor were found from the house of the accused and thereby he has been charged with the offences alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations are admitted, only the offence under Section 63 would be attracted, and Section 55(a) has been incorporated for the purpose of falsely implicating him in a serious crime.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5446 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:34175
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that though petitioner was arrested in the case registered by the Vigilance, even before his formal arrest could be recorded, he was granted bail in the said case. Therefore, it is essential that petitioner be subjected to custodial interrogation.
7. On a perusal of the FIR produced as Annexure-1, it is noticed that the sole allegation against the petitioner is that he had kept 7 bottles of foreign liquor in his house, which was occupied by him and his wife. Prima facie, the nature of allegations in the FIR only indicate an offence under Section 63 of the Act. There is no material to attract the offence under Section 55(a) of the Act, at least at this stage.
8. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 (5) SCC 1, it was held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.
9. In Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274], it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial investigation of the accused BAIL APPL. NO. 5446 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:34175 is required for the purpose of investigation. In the instant case, the State has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary.
10. Taking note of the circumstances, and also the fact that the custodial interrogation is not necessary in the instant case as petitioner was only found to be in possession of foreign liquor more than the permitted quantity, I am of the view that petitioner is entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail.
11. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 28.05.2025, and shall subject himself to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.
(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.
(f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the BAIL APPL. NO. 5446 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:34175 Court having jurisdiction.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
12. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are solely for the purpose of disposing of this bail application and it shall have no bearing on any other proceedings.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/19/05/2025 BAIL APPL. NO. 5446 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:34175 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5446/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 190/2025 DATED 16.03.2025 REGISTERED BY ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH P.S.